United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division
D. Whitney, Chief United States District Judge
MATTER is before the Court on initial review of
plaintiff's Complaint, filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
(Doc. No. 1). Also before the Court is plaintiff's
Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying
Fees or Costs. (Doc. No. 2.)
Plaintiff Raymond Dakim Harris Joiner, a North Carolina
prisoner incarcerated at Marion Correctional Institution in
Marion, North Carolina, filed this action on February 9,
2017, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has named
George T. Solomon and the North Carolina Department of Public
Safety as Defendants. Plaintiff alleges the following facts
in the Complaint:
Defendant[s] do not have a valid contract agreement to do
business in the Plaintiff[‘s] name and hereby did
obtain private documents and property without consent of a
lawful detainer. The Defendant[s] furthermore upon
information and belief contracted with the state court in the
Plaintiff[‘s] name and presumed to have subject matter
jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction and proof of claim and
set up a[n] estate under Raymond D. Joiner and denationalized
the Plaintiff that cause irrepairable [sic] injury to his
life, liberty and property by having to learn to undo the
damages by learning the law in a[n] institution that [does]
not have a law library, copy machine or internet, and as
indigent had to go without policy book.
Defendant[s'] staff at Marion Correctional Institution
refuse to allow the Plaintiff access to UCC financing
statement forms, and Plaintiff [has] been on segregation for
five years without the use of telephone to call family or
conduct business. On Plaintiff[‘s]
“offender” information sheet under race it say[s]
“other, ” the Plaintiff is American with Polish
(Complaint 7 ¶¶ 5-6, Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff states
that he seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory
and punitive damages, a jury trial, reimbursement of court
costs, and relinquishment by Defendants any and all of
plaintiff's personal documents in Defendants'
possession. (Complaint 4). Specifically, as to the
declaratory and injunctive relief, Plaintiff asks the Court
to order Defendants to stop using the plaintiff's name
and property without his consent. (Complaint 4).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must
review the Complaint to determine whether it is subject to
dismissal on the grounds that it is “frivolous or
malicious [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Furthermore, 28
U.S.C. § 1915A requires an initial review of a
“complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of
a governmental entity, ” and the court must identify
cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of
the complaint, if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. In its frivolity review, this Court must
determine whether the Complaint raises an indisputably
meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless
factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional
scenarios. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28
Court will dismiss this action as frivolous and for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. To prevail
in a § 1983 action, a plaintiff must show that the
defendant violated a federal right. See Inmates v.
Owens, 561 F.2d 560, 562-63 (4th Cir. 1977) (finding
that to state a civil rights claim, one must allege that he,
himself, sustained the deprivation of a right, privilege, or
immunity secured by the Constitution or federal law). Here,
plaintiff's allegations fail to state a cognizable claim
of a violation of a federal right. As an initial matter,
there is no constitutional requirement that an inmate have
free access to a telephone.
Petitioner's assertions that his relationship with the
North Carolina Department of Public Safety is governed by the
law of contracts and/or commercial law is patently absurd.
See e.g. Thomas v. United States, No.
5:13-HC-2050-D, 2013 WL 12112952, at *1-2 (E.D. N.C. July 8,
2013), aff'd, 568 F. App'x 239 (4th Cir.
2014) (“To begin with, the U.C.C. has no bearing on
criminal subject matter jurisdiction. Prisoners have
sporadically attempted to foist such frivolous, irrational,
unintelligible UCC-related arguments on federal district
courts for years.
efforts . . . have uniformly been rejected in summary
fashion, and may subject their filers to prosecution should
they proceed to file frivolous bonds, liens or default
notices against government officials ...